Appointments & TransfersNews

F.No. 16/06/2019-OMI—Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman, Minister of Finance, Government of India, has been appointed as India’s Governor on the Board of Governors of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) vice Shri Arun Jaitley with effect from May 31, 2019.


[Notification dt. 21-06-2019]

Ministry of Finance

Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

No. MCI-34(41)/2018-Med./170039—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Board of Governors in super-session of Medical Council of India with the previous sanction of the Central Government, hereby makes the following Regulations to further amend the “Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999”, namely: –

1. (i) These Regulations may be called the “Establishment of Medical College Regulations(Amendment), 2019”.

    (ii) These amendments shall be applicable for the applications received for the academic year 2019-20 onwards with retrospective effect in public interest and interest of no person shall be adversely affected by such retrospective effect.

2. In clause 8 “Grant of Permission”, sub–clause 3(1) following shall be added:

     Provided that inspection for the purposes of grant of permission for Establishment of New Medical College or Renewal of Permission/Recognition of existing Medical College shall not be conducted at least two days before and two days after important religious and festival holidays declared by the Central/State Government.

3. In Clause 8 “Grant of Permission”, sub–clause 3(1)(a) under the heading of “Colleges in the stage up to II renewal (i.e. Admission of third batch)”shall be substituted as under:-

   (a) Colleges in the stage of Letter of Permission up to II renewal (i.e. Admission of third batch) If it is observed during any inspection/assessment of the institute that the deficiency of teaching faculty and/or Residents is more than 30% and/or bed occupancy is less than 50% (45% in North East, Hilly terrain, etc.), compliance of rectification of deficiencies from such an institute will not be considered for issue of Letter of Permission (LOP)/renewal of permission in that Academic Year.

Provided that prior to applying the above clause, a show-cause notice shall be issued to the Institute seeking an explanation as to why the punitive provisions contained in above-mentioned clause should not be applied against it and the same shall be disposed off after granting an opportunity of hearing by a reasoned order.

Please follow the link for the detailed notification constituting amendments: Notification

Board of Governors
In Suppression of Medical Council of India

Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Principles of interpretation of statute, it is trite, are not straight-jacketed, and are fundamentally fluid in nature, requiring to be moulded in view of the statutory provision being subjected to interpretation.”

Delhi High Court: The Bench comprising of ACJ Gita Mittal and C. Hari Shankar, J. allowed a petition concerning the removal of Respondent 4 from the Board of Governors of the School of Planning & Architecture.

In the present case, it has been stated that the petitioner was an architect, impugned the inclusion of Respondent 4 in the Board of Governors of Respondent 3- School of Planning & Architecture.

Section 12 of School of Planning & Architecture Act, 2014 provides that the authorities, of Delhi Schools covered by the Act, shall include a Board of Governors and a Senate. The Board of Governors of any school is, by virtue of sub-section (i) of Section 13 of the Act, the principal executive body of the particular school in question. Respondent 4 was nominated as a Member of the Board under clause (d) Section 13 (2) of the Act, as a “representative from the council of architecture to be nominated by the president of the council of architecture.”

Petitioner’s case is that the respondent 4 does not qualify as a “representative from the council of architecture as he was not one of the member of the council, within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act. Respondent’s contended that the “representative” referred to in clause (d) of Section 13 (2) need not necessarily be a Member of the Council of Architecture.

Therefore, on considering the submissions of the parties, the Court opened its conclusion by stating that the controversy involved does not admit any complexity. Further, while laying down the decision, according to the bench, reading clauses of Section 13(2) of the Act revealed that the words “from” and “of” have selectively and, apparently, deliberately-been used in different clauses thereof.

“Where different words are used by the legislature in the same statutory provision, the use of such different words have necessarily to be regarded as deliberate, and it would be interpretative folly, on our part, to attribute, to such different words, the same meaning.”

Bench also pointed out that reliance by Mr D. Verma counsel for Respondent 4 on provisions relating to elections to various bodies, containing the conditional expression “from amongst its members” is patently misconceived. The use of the word “from” is deliberate and can admit of only one construction. Members of the Council of Architecture, and Members alone, would be entitled to be regarded as representatives from the said Council. Further, submission of the respondent that any architect registered with the Council of Architecture was eligible to be regarded as a representative from the Council of Architecture, is totally unsustainable in law.

Construction and understanding, of words used in statutory provisions necessarily, has to be conditioned by the contours and context in which they are used.

Thus the words “from the Council of Architecture” are more than sufficient to indicate, clearly and unequivocally, the legislative intent, that the nominee concerned had to be a Member of the Council of Architecture and not just any of the teeming millions of architects practicing in the country. Appointment/ Nomination of Respondent 4 as a member of the Board of Governors of the SPA, by the impugned communication from Respondent 1 to the SPA is illegal being contrary to clause (d) of Section 13 (2) as he was admittedly not a Member of the Council of Architecture within the meaning of Section 3(3) of the Act. [Sudhir Vohra v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6424, decided on 05-01-2018]